Feminism or death?

Toysoldier: I commented on your statements knowing that we were discussing feminist theory. You linked to only a blog. You provided one source of evidence. You have no excuse for this. How did I reach the conclusion that you are a liar? Because your position is based in faulty knowledge. Do note, that at first I stated you did not hold the knowledge you thought you did. I am calling you a liar NOW because you systematically reject or avoid any information that provides an empirical counter to your failed attempt at discourse.

You are avoiding the subject that you hold no validity in your statements Toysoldier. I have given reasons for why I didn’t bother to read your source because it pails in comparison to the vast quantities of literature that already exist on the subject that are about actual theory. A single source is not a representative body of work. Now I could look over your single source and engage over that, where I imagine you likely have misinterpreted, but that isn’t what I am bothering to contest with your statements. This isn’t intellectually dishonest of me, it is in fact a valid reason for why I have discounted your single source. You, on the other hand, still have not answered for what I have stated above.

Also, have you ever heard of citations? Clearly not. I gave you clues. It is not my job to provide you direct links, even though I have already given you an applied study that you still never read yourself (That is intellectually rigorous as academic literature, in that it holds greater validity as a single source compared to others plus it’s own citations to create a knowledge stream). You still have failed to source any evidence of feminist theory being monolithic in its development of knowledge.

Actually, I’m pretty sure you don’t even know what intellectual honesty is. Again, this is where the crux of the issue with you is. You aren’t intellectually honest because your convictions are not in proportion to the valid evidence. Which is what I have been saying the whole time, you don’t have the knowledge nor any significant evidence for your claims on theory. I’ve given you multiple sources of theory in both practice and as theoretical that do not do the things that you say it does. You do not hold intellectual honesty due to avoiding valid data.

Do note, you are the one making the claim that feminist theory is monolithic, applies universals, and fits to one standard. Your only source on that claim is a single feminist 101 blog. Do you see why this doesn’t actually fly? Before you even get into trying to run away from answers again, can you AT LEAST try to answer this? Or how about you answer for your misuse of the no true Scotsman fallacy? Can you answer for that?

PS – BTW, Toy Solider, this would be an example of me actually mocking you.

Jinx! There’s one! Prior to that, however, there has been nothing.

Double jinx! You owe me a soda! :3

Oversimplification is the nature of many 101 blogs. I’m trying to discuss theory here and TS is only going off on a single blog. I’m curious how one makes a leap in logic from a single blog post to being indicative of the entirety of feminism and feminist theory forever, from 1950’s to now. From there, then claim it as a conspiracy by a collusive group of feminists to fix logic errors in previous discourse so they can… somehow continue oppressing men? Remain a matriarchy? Prevent dudes from getting laid? I find the latter to be most silly, sex isn’t something that is looked down on by most modern feminism.

Never mind the epistemological nature of research and how knowledge is generated. Never mind all this other evidence of theory put into practice, being discussed with rigour, and discourse itself ever-changing. Nope. Just one blog post. That is everything that is wrong about the whole of feminism. All that from a single blog post. Maybe add in some hatred for spice.

Oh for fuck’s sake!
Toysoldier,
You just see what you want to see. You are trying to interpret even the tiniest detail as somehow proving you point. It’s very…tiring. What exactly are you trying to achieve?

And yeah, it’s seriously not okay that you are attempting to guilt-trip people with your experiences. Apparently, the fact that we believed you when you said you were abused somehow means that we have to accept all of your other claims without any question, or else we are not being honest or are mocking/belittling you.
Besides, I don’t think there was a single person here who voiced disbelief in that regard, so I don’t understand why you have to bring it up ever so often.
On another note, several people in this comment thread have also mentioned that they were abused, and no one used the fact that you didn’t have a word of sympathy as an argument against you – because that would be derailing, and doesn’t have much to do with the discussion at hand. So please try to give us the same courtesy.

And also try to stick to the actual arguments instead of arguing against straw men, and educate yourself on issues like the various branches of feminism, privilege and intersectionality, before arguing against them.
We don’t disagree with you because we are feminists and you don’t like feminism. We disagree with you because you are factually wrong, and because you refuse to listen.

@Cassandra
It’s because we trained him to be a good little mangina.

Toy Soldier:

I never said feminism abused me. I stated that feminism caused my aunt to become violent due to the ideology’s misandry.

Which is it? Do you hold feminism responsible for your abuse or not?

Now, abuse doesn’t get you out of being told you are factually wrong when you are factually wrong, being called a liar when you are saying something demonstrably untrue, or being mocked when you say something worthy of mockery. And I think it’s safe to say that the consensus of opinion here is that your aunt is/was an abuser, and feminism was the excuse rather than the reason. None of that, however, means that anyone here doubts or approves of you having been abused — and I don’t recall if you’ve said as much in the last 13 pages, but it’s certainly the subtext of your comments taken in aggregate.

@Flib:

“A no true scotsman requires something without reference to a specific object rule and a statement that “well, not all feminists are the same”. While the latter is true, not all feminists are the same, we aren’t discussing feminists here. We are discussing theory.”

But feminism, like the feminist definition of Patriarchy at 101, is a theory. Betty Freidan had some differences with “mainstream feminism” as did Christna Hoff Sommers. Would you still consider them feminists? If not, why?

Good one Kollege Kat, ya got me. I guess I should have known that given her making statements like “[e]ach gender has a different way of falling in love.” “Loving feminist” is almost an oxymoron compared to “angry feminist” or misandrist feminist. Training men must be a universal trait of feminists AND regular women.

By the way, the question still stands. What is the feminist strategy to “untrain” boys like Demond Reed’s cousins?

Thanks for the article. I like her a lot more now.

Sorry for the double posting. My comment stayed in the reply box and I inadvertently posted it again.

And Rev is going back and forth again. Oy.

^
@Rev.

@Holly,
but don’t you know, women actually trained them to DO those horrible things! Because women love assholes, amirite?

(note to Rev: this was sarcasm. Women generally don’t want to be treated horribly, and it’s assumed there aren’t any women with mind control powers either)